while I agree that relationshop stuff add more variaty in roleplaying, and I agree about the point of rpg's being about escapism (I am an escapist) while most people deny that because they don't want to have the common gamer sterotypes tagged to them.

but from my POV I don't like that they've added these things because they are at the same time saying that they did not have enough time to make other parts of the game better. imo the amount of role play enhancement that relationship content (which has hardly changed since fable) brings to the table does not justify alot of content "that there isn't enough time for"

RPG is a stupid criteria now because it means something different for everyone else. What the OP described I'd call a sim game. It absolutely does take away from elder scrolls because logic dictates other areas must suffer. Elder Scrolls has changed a lot but I think what some people propose is a whole different game itself. I understand they are adding some of this stuff but I highly doubt it's going to be a big feature and that doesn't bother me because it's an elder scrolls game.



I don't think most books are 60 dollars and have hundreds of expensive professionals behind their release. They don't owe us anything and neither do we owe them, which is why they have to entice us to buy their game.

I really don't think relationships, marriage and jobs enhance roleplaying, Sims has already triumphed in that area.
Real dialogue, different quest solutions that are handled in a gray area and not just good vs evil and a bigger emphasis on choices and consequences enhance roleplaying for me.

Thank you, and peace to you as well, ShadowWarrior.

Your points are well made. And frankly, I don't know if this generation of consoles and computers are even capable of giving flawless renditions of anything. But I think something is better than nothing. Some verisimilitude is better than none. Attempting and getting half way there is better than just throwing up the hands and saying, "forget it, it won't be great, so why bother."

If that were the case, then the quests, and factions and, guild membership and mastery and practically everything else should be dropped, as none of them are without shortcomings.

I think the practice in this game will make for even better AI in the next game, and that is all for the good.

I know Fable is often derided here, but their local co-op funcion is a great example of something that started of unimpressive and then made huge improvements. It first featured in Fable II. And while it functioned okay, it was severely underwhelming. The second player was generic, and could neither purchase nor really interract with anything, nor could they customize in anyway. By Fable III, other than an understandable inability to activate quests, the second player was as fully interactive and customizable as player one. A friend could actually play along without feeling like a terribly shortchanged afterthought.

Why mention all that? Just an illustration for the naysayers of how things happen in steps. It makes sense for deeper more immersive interactions to be available in Elder Scrolls, and since we all know it will be at least three years and probably more, before another game in the series is released, why wouldn't they start here and do as much with it as can presently be managed?

I know I am preaching to the choir with you a little on this one. But that's okay. The nonbelievers can listen to our singing and maybe learn some of the good news. :wink_smile:

Well said. :trophy:

this. RPGs to me are more about the story than gimmicky things like marraige/relationships (i think theyre more for sims games).

But if marraige and relationships could somehow expand apon some story in the game or give some kind of depth that adds to the world then sure id be all for it but i have a feeling itll be handled only slightly better than fable games. also as said above bethesda has made statements about not having time for some other features that i really wished were in the game instead of relationships so thats another reason why i dont really like it being in the game.

Role playing had huge Sims elements before the Sims game had ever been heard of or conceptualized.

The old Table Top RPGs were full of SIMS aspects. The difference is, while with those you had notes about your character's history, life status, family, where he hailed from etc. etc., and sometimes shared those details conversationally among your companion gamers etc., in the video game, you create the story in real time at all times.

The details do not take away from the story. They are PART OF the story, just as Frodo's friendship with Sam is part of the Lord of The Rings story, as was the friend/mentor relationship that Gandalf had towards Frodo, and Bilbo, and Bilbo's old Grandfather Took long before. Like Snape's love of Lilly Potter, and Harry's growing affection for Ginny, and his friendship with Ron and Hermonie, and Dumbledore's knowledge of Tom (Voldemort). Indeed, Dumbledore spends a great deal of time reviewing aspects of Voldemort's youth, exactly because his personal story was important if not essential to Harry understanding and unraveling him and the secrets to defeating him. Is Luke's relationship to Vader relevant to the story? What about his relationship to Leia? Interactions and relationships are as much a part of a good tale as the quests, and the obstacles, the monsters and the magic, the perils and the plot twists. Indeed, some of the plot twists are deeply tied to the interactions and relationships.

But beyond those things, for the experience to be truly immersive, for the player to feel like they are part of the world when they step into it, rather than an ever alienated foriegn entity, merely dropping in to solve the big riddle and vanquish the big baddie, deep interactions and the ability to interact to a greater degree, are very important factors. So long as you are not forced to play in this way, it is a very good thing to have as an option.

There are lots of interesting ideas in the relationship thread. I guess what I'd like to see is marriage make some difference to gameplay, rather than spouses just being glorified permanent companions.

Some ideas from the relationship thread I thought sounded promising:

Interracial marriages can result in NPCs treating you differently.
You can affect some NPCs by doing something to their spouse. Similarly, you can be affected by NPCs doing something to your spouse. There's the potential here, I think for interesting interaction between marriage and the faction/reputation systems.

I very much agree with what you say.
I have always expressed it like this:
I feel that the new additions of jobs and relationships tie a character to the world more.
It makes the PC more a part of the world, rather than stand apart of it.

Very much agreed about the suggestions in your last paragraph. If the AI can manage it, I think that would be great.

For fairness sake, I'll do the otherside of the argument.



But it adds so much to the game!



Did you read the opening post?



...



It's an opinion. It can't be right.



...

First, a word of thanks to MikeOblivion, Rugged Like Joshm, and anyone else who voiced support for the original commentary, but whom I may not have gotten to reply to directly.

Second, Padomay, well put. People often use things like marraige in Fable as a red herring argument for why people had problems with the Fable games (though not enough problems to keep those games from selling millions of copies), and as proof that the features are bad.

The first thing of note is that people who complained about Fable almost NEVER complained that the game offered marraige, or local co-op, or the ability to strum a lute or buy a shop. If anything, those were some of the games saving graces: i.e. among the very features that kept people buying those games instead of giving up on the franchise entirely for some other genre game. Those options were not the flaw of Fable III or any other Fable game. Quests that were too short, sidequests that were too few and too far between, a world that was too small, too few spells, loss of armour, insufficient attention to lore, not enough mystical creatures etc. THOSE were the things that damaged the Fable series and garnered massive criticism, not the many options and features that actually added to the game and kept it from being a total failure.

In regard to the illogical arguments which you are so rightly taking issue against, let me not only agree with you, but add the following anologies:

Saying that the Fable games were flawed because they had marraige options, is like saying the Star Wars Prequels were flawed because Yoda was in them. And suggesting that marraige is a bad idea because Fable offered it, is like saying that swords and offensive spells are bad things because Fable had those as well.

It never amazes me that most of what you have said here is lost on the average forum-goer... but it does make me very sad, on the whole, for what this says about human intelligence.


When I see someone make a thread like this, I immediately see the mandatory swarms of "It adds nothing" and "It doesn't make sense" and "I don't want jobs, that's too much like real life" and I find myself inevitably saying that's what makes them GOOD things. The addition of plausibility to a game world... the addition of things which add to the 'realism' as it were... they are important characteristics in a game which emphasizes the players' ability to role-play.

And then of course, you see folks who say "Hurr, hurr... yeah... dragons are realistic. Realism and Fantasy Games have nothing to do with each other!" which is, of course, just more erroneous non-sense spouted off by people who obviously don't care enough to THINK about what you're talking about, much less how the mechanic will actually be involved in their game whatsoever.

Realism is as subjective to the universe you apply it as any other characteristic of a game.

Elves are REALISTIC in a game like The Elder Scrolls. Fireballs and spell-slinging and dungeons with monsters in them... all of this is a REALITY of the universe in which Elder Scrolls games take place. When someone says they want realism... it is in the context of the universe. They want to FEEL as if they are standing in Tamriel... to escape to a plausible, feasible reality all their own.

And yet, no matter how many times you redundantly repeat this fact... someone says something so mind-bafflingly thoughtless that you just want to smash your face into your desk until the sweet bliss of unconsciousness saves you from the realization that you are, as a species, RELATED to these individuals in some small genetic way.